Once again, there are multiple levels of top secret security clearances. Simply having access does not mean you have access to everything.

Your inability to apply this trivially true statement in any way against the argument I made about the number of people who could view these documents is laughable, particularly given that SIPRNet was specifically defined as handling collateral secret info without the restrictions you keep alluding to.

Your inability to apply this trivially true statement in any way against the argument I made about the number of people who could view these documents is laughable, particularly given that SIPRNet was specifically defined as handling collateral secret info without the restrictions you keep alluding to.

I'm just talking about how the system has worked for decades in general. That fact that there are multiple levels of security clearance is not trivial. Its incorrect to be suggesting that anyone with any sort of top secret clearance has access to everything.

I'm just talking about how the system has worked for decades in general. That fact that there are multiple levels of security clearance is not trivial. Its incorrect to be suggesting that anyone with any sort of top secret clearance has access to everything.

Am I inaccurate in believing that if you have a Top Secret clearance, you would be able to view uncompartmentalized Secret-level classified documents? If that is your claim then make it instead of hinting at it vaguely. If your argument is that otherwise cleared people may not have physical access to SIPRnet then for the Nth time I'll say the US was actively trying to make this sort of information openly accessible across government post 9/11.

Given this hilarious mishap with BVS though I'm reluctant to just take your word on anything.

Am I inaccurate in believing that if you have a Top Secret clearance, you would be able to view uncompartmentalized Secret-level classified documents? If that is your claim then make it instead of hinting at it vaguely. If your argument is that otherwise cleared people may not have physical access to SIPRnet then for the Nth time I'll say the US was actively trying to make this sort of information openly accessible across government post 9/11.

Given this hilarious mishap with BVS though I'm reluctant to just take your word on anything.

Wow, I can tell you must be the gentlemen of this forum. I've stated what I know in general and what has been a standard for decades. It is inaccurate to suggest that anyone with a top secret clearance has access to anything that is "top secret". There are different levels of security clearance and that point was not mentioned until I brought it up.

Wow, I can tell you must be the gentlemen of this forum. I've stated what I know in general and what has been a standard for decades. It is inaccurate to suggest that anyone with a top secret clearance has access to anything that is "top secret". There are different levels of security clearance and that point was not mentioned until I brought it up.

I don't want to keep going in circles when we've reached the point of just restating our objections. I think your 3rd and 4th sentences are wrong, (and clearly you think otherwise) but I'm happy letting others read our back and forth and decide for themselves.

No link between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, say military sources
NBC News reports no collusion between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, according to military sources

US military sources tell NBC they see no link between Bradley Manning (left) and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

US investigators have been unable to find evidence directly linking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the army private suspected of passing on confidential documents to the whistleblowing website, according to a report last night.

Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News's chief Pentagon correspondent, reported sources inside the US military as saying they could detect no contact between Manning and Assange.

According to NBC News:

The officials say that while investigators have determined that Manning had allegedly unlawfully downloaded tens of thousands of documents onto his own computer and passed them to an unauthorized person, there is apparently no evidence he passed the files directly to Assange, or had any direct contact with the controversial WikiLeaks figure.

If accurate, then US authorities have no realistic chance of successfully prosecuting or extraditing Assange for the leak of thousands of classified documents.

NBC also reported that the commander of Manning's military jail at the Quantico US Marine base exceeded his authority in placing the private on suicide watch last week, and that army lawyers had the restrictions removed:

Military officials said Brig Commander James Averhart did not have the authority to place Manning on suicide watch for two days last week, and that only medical personnel are allowed to make that call.

The official said that after Manning had allegedly failed to follow orders from his Marine guards. Averhart declared Manning a "suicide risk." Manning was then placed on suicide watch, which meant he was confined to his cell, stripped of most of his clothing and deprived of his reading glasses — anything that Manning could use to harm himself. At the urging of US Army lawyers, Averhart lifted the suicide watch.

Manning remains in solitary confinement in his cell for 23 hours each day, with only one hour for exercise and one hour watching television.

Manning is classed as a "maximum custody" detainee, despite having no history of violence or disciplinary offences in custody. This means he is shackled at the hands and legs during all visits and denied opportunities to work, which would allow him to leave his cell.

Jake Tapper, ABC: A quick question about Bradley Manning, suspected of leaking information. Is the administration satisfied that he's being kept in conditions that are appropriate for his accused crime and that visitors to Bradley Manning are treated as any visitors to any prison are treated?

Robert Gibbs: I haven't, you know, truthfully, Jake, have not heard a lot of discussion on that inside of here. I'm happy to take a look at something. In terms of a specific question about that, I think that I would direct you to the authorities that are holding him.

I look at it this way: the internet has forever changed how we, as individuals, think about and handle our privacy and most personal information. Now, with Wikileaks and this watershed moment in politics and technology, nation-states are going to have to grapple with the 21st-century.

People who heap blame on Assange or this one site are completely missing the point. It's over, too late to go back. Al-Jazeera has launched a site where whistleblowers can submit files containing sensitive information through very strong encryption.

Bill Keller of the NYTimes posts an essay about his paper's interactions with Assange and Wikileaks:

Quote:

In fact, leaks of classified material — sometimes authorized — are part of the way business is conducted in Washington, as one wing of the bureaucracy tries to one-up another or officials try to shift blame or claim credit or advance or confound a particular policy. For further evidence that our government is highly selective in its approach to secrets, look no further than Bob Woodward’s all-but-authorized accounts of the innermost deliberations of our government.

The government surely cheapens secrecy by deploying it so promiscuously. According to the Pentagon, about 500,000 people have clearance to use the database from which the secret cables were pilfered. Weighing in on the WikiLeaks controversy in The Guardian, Max Frankel remarked that secrets shared with such a legion of “cleared” officials, including low-level army clerks, “are not secret.” Governments, he wrote, “must decide that the random rubber-stamping of millions of papers and computer files each year does not a security system make.”

Quote:

I’m a little puzzled by the complaint that most of the embassy traffic we disclosed did not profoundly change our understanding of how the world works. Ninety-nine percent of what we read or hear on the news does not profoundly change our understanding of how the world works. News mostly advances by inches and feet, not in great leaps. The value of these documents — and I believe they have immense value — is not that they expose some deep, unsuspected perfidy in high places or that they upend your whole view of the world. For those who pay close attention to foreign policy, these documents provide texture, nuance and drama. They deepen and correct your understanding of how things unfold; they raise or lower your estimation of world leaders. For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more. If a project like this makes readers pay attention, think harder, understand more clearly what is being done in their name, then we have performed a public service. And that does not count the impact of these revelations on the people most touched by them. WikiLeaks cables in which American diplomats recount the extravagant corruption of Tunisia’s rulers helped fuel a popular uprising that has overthrown the government.

....

The idea that the mere publication of such a wholesale collection of secrets will make other countries less willing to do business with our diplomats seems to me questionable. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates called this concern “overwrought.” Foreign governments cooperate with us, he pointed out, not because they necessarily love us, not because they trust us to keep their secrets, but because they need us. It may be that for a time diplomats will choose their words more carefully or circulate their views more narrowly, but WikiLeaks has not repealed the laws of self-interest. A few weeks after we began publishing articles about the embassy cables, David Sanger, our chief Washington correspondent, told me: “At least so far, the evidence that foreign leaders are no longer talking to American diplomats is scarce. I’ve heard about nervous jokes at the beginning of meetings, along the lines of ‘When will I be reading about this conversation?’ But the conversations are happening. . . . American diplomacy has hardly screeched to a halt.”

I look at it this way: the internet has forever changed how we, as individuals, think about and handle our privacy and most personal information. Now, with Wikileaks and this watershed moment in politics and technology, nation-states are going to have to grapple with the 21st-century.

People who heap blame on Assange or this one site are completely missing the point. It's over, too late to go back. Al-Jazeera has launched a site where whistleblowers can submit files containing sensitive information through very strong encryption.

I know an International Relations expert/lecturer, specialising in the Middle East, with a pretty interesting background before education. On the question of where these 'PaliLeaks' possibly came from, he thought - and he explained why - that them coming from the US would make the most, complete sense.

This treatment is even more degrading considering that PFC Manning is being monitored -- both by direct observation and by video -- at all times. The defense was informed by Brig officials that the decision to strip PFC Manning of all his clothing was made without consulting any of the Brig's mental health providers.

I don't care if you think Manning should jailed for the rest of his life, there is absolutely no excuse for this sort of punishment, even if he's convicted.

I was waiting for an update on how they were doing with that whole, "Hold PFC Manning without charges / sleep deprivation / torture" thing.

Between Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and PFC Manning, I think the US Military would have trouble running a banana stand without finding some way to break UN Human Rights conventions.

The ultimate test of September 11th was seeing if the U.S. really held the moral high ground in the world, and it's pretty obvious from the events following that they have none. Very disappointed with that the country has become.

Between Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and PFC Manning, I think the US Military would have trouble running a banana stand without finding some way to break UN Human Rights conventions.

The case of Bradley Manning and the recent Mubarak situation have really soured me on the traditional "freedom and democracy" rhetoric American politicians employ. It's gone from casual "oh you hypocritical politicians" to real anger. I read a really good point- none of this is nuanced by political considerations like one might argue certain Obama issues were. No one would have voted against him if he treated Manning humanely before trial.